BBC Trust upholds complaint by professional anti-Israel campaigner

As readers may have heard, the BBC Trust has upheld a complaint by professional anti-Israel campaigner Ben White. The Jewish Chronicle reports:

“Mr White complained to the BBC, claiming that the introduction to the news report was “deeply offensive” to Palestinians who had “lost everything as a result of ethnic cleansing”.

The introduction had stated that 60 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli forces while marking Nakba Day, which the piece said was “the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of statehood which resulted in thousands of Palestinians leaving their homes”. “

BBC Watch will be addressing this subject in due course, but in the meantime, here is the ever incisive Robin Shepherd’s analysis:

“It would be just as true to say that the report in question had failed to point out that the large majority of Palestinian departures were as a result of a calculated and voluntary decision by Palestinians to leave their homes so as to allow the invading Arab armies to advance in the hope of killing off the nascent Jewish state, and most of the Jews with it.

Many others left in the fog of war. Most of the forced expulsions that did take place were in areas of strategic importance where the military had little choice but to remove the local population, which was in any case packed full of real and potential anti-Israel fighters.

An even more historically accurate report would have also pointed out that there would not have been a single refugee if the Palestinian/Arab side had followed the Jewish/Israeli side and accepted the two state solution contained within the UN Partition Plan. Instead, they opted for violence and war. Hence, the refugee problem. “

The Palestinian President Abbas also admitted they left:
“The balance of military power – actually, it was not a military power in the true sense of the word… All [we] had was several young men fighting with primitive [weapons]… When they felt that the balance [of power] had shifted, they decided to leave. The city in its entirety left, in order to protect their lives and their women’s honor.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2212.htm

The real distortion is that the Jewish Nakba is nowhere mentioned , the concurrent gratuitous expulsion of a greater number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In December 1947 the Arab league was already talking of these Jews as enemy aliens of the Jewish minority of Palestine.

Ben White isn’t just an anti-Israel obsessive – he is on record saying “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons”. He has also backed Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust is a “myth,” and quotes in his writings from the Holocaust denier Garaudy.

1) “It would be just as true to say that the report in question had failed to point out that the large majority of Palestinian departures were as a result of a calculated and voluntary decision by Palestinians”

Benny Morris, in ‘Middle Eastern Studies’ of Jan 1986, quotes an IDF intelligence report of June 1948 saying that of the 370,000 Arabs that had left by June 1st 84% went in direct response to Israeli actions.

2) “An even more historically accurate report would have also pointed out that there would not have been a single refugee if the Palestinian/Arab side had followed the Jewish/Israeli side and accepted the two state solution contained within the UN Partiti on Plan.”

Nonsense again. Zionist leaders saw acceptance of the Partition Plan as a stepping stone towards the military conquest of the whole of Mandate Palestine. Ben-Gurion said as much many times: e.g. addressing the Zionist Executive he said: “after the formation of a large army ….. we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”.

Ah, “sencar”, not content with your failed attempt to traduce MEMRI earlier, you’re now trying to muddy DBG.
Could we have a reputable source for that quote, please?
I won’t be holding my breath, though.

The quote is from ‘From the Partition Dispute to the Allon Plan’, by Zeev Tzur (Tel Aviv,1982). It’s bedtime for me but I’ll give you more similar quotes tomorrow. Incidentally, do you really want to censor people who say things that you disagree with? The standards of accuracy of many of your Zionist posters leave a lot to be desired but I’ve yet to see anyone else threatened with deletion. Interesting.

So, you’ve taken the alleged “quote” from a source on the Peel Commission(Tzur), twisted it to somehow fit to the debate over UNGA181(since Peel’s was theoretical at best), and then had the gall to admit that you had been lying, but would, “…give you more similar quotes…”.
Have I mentioned you’re despicable(your previous, “Khazar” outbursts for the time being ignored)?
I think you’d actually benefit from having this splurge of yours deleted. You wouldn’t want, I imagine, to appear exposed for the propagandist you are.

During the fighting in the 1948-49 war, thousands of Arabs living in the territory that became Israel fled. The main reason they fled was that they understandably wanted to put some distance between their families and the battle zones. At the same time, they were ordered by the Arab political leadership to leave the territory of Israel. Why take my word on this? Listen to Arab sources:

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”
– Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949.

“The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”
– from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954.

“”The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND” (emphasis added), Abu Mazen, erstwhile “Prime Minister” of the Palestinian Authority, in “What We Have Learned and What We Should Do,” published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976.

Four. Arab leadership from among the para-military forces and the forces of Syria were vociferous in their announcements that they wanted Arabs to leave so that the armies would have a clear field in which to perpetrate their genocide of the Jews (see appendix below). When the war was over (Arab newspaper articles suggested about 4-6 weeks before all the Jews were driven out or killed), the Arab residents could come back and have both their own lands and those of the Jews.

We cannot know how many Arabs fled because of these announcements; but since a number of Arab spokespersons after the war admitted to having done this, and wrung their hands publicly in painful repentance of having created the refugee problem, it is clear that the Arab leadership’s own message to many Arabs in the area was a major factor in the Arab flight.

It is also important to point out at this time that there were a number of cases where Jewish leaders got out in public and pleaded with Arabs not to leave. The mayor of Haifa is the best example of this. At the risk of his own life, he drove through the Arab section of Haifa with a loudspeaker on his jeep, and in Arabic called out to the residents of his city to disregard the Arab propaganda.

Nonetheless, tens of thousands fled. The incredulous British officers who witnessed this (don’t forget, the British had not yet left) documented it in a variety of sources (some mentioned in the appendix below). Those Arabs who stayed were unharmed and became citizens of Israel.

The British also documented for the world a similar phenomenon in Tiberius (a town in which the Arab population vastly outnumbered the Jewish), where the Arabs quite literally chose to leave even though they were under no direct threat from the Jews, and asked the British to assist them. Tens of thousands left under British guard, while the Jews, both civilian and Hagana, looked on.

In a slightly different twist, the Arabs of Safed (Tzefat) fled before the Haganah attack, even though the Arab forces in Safed outnumbered the Jews about 10 to one.

Wherever Arabs chose to stay, they were unharmed and later became citizens of Israel.

There have been a number of essays written by later historians contesting the truth of the assertion that Arab leaders told their people to flee. But Conan Cruise O’Brien’s “The Siege” and Mitchell Bard’s “Idiot’s Guide to the Mid-East conflict” and “Myths and Facts” offer irrefutable proof of just such pronouncements.

“As part of their effort to undermine Israel’s moral standing as an ally of the United States, Walt and Mearsheimer cite its allegedly oppressive and ruthless treatment of Arabs, and offer up as proof seemingly damaging statements by Israeli leaders. Thus they claim that the following statement by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proved that Israel never really accepted partition of the Palestine Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, and was always intent on expelling and dispossessing the Palestinians:

After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. (paper; book, p 93)

Did Ben-Gurion actually say this? Not quite. The above quote is supposedly from a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive, the pre-state representative body of the Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and here’s what Ben-Gurion actually said according to the meeting protocol:

Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.

Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state. (from Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea,”Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)

In other words, Ben-Gurion was stating exactly the opposite of what Walt and Mearsheimer would have their readers believe.”

“A Jewish state is not the end but the beginning…..we shall organise a sophisticated defense force – an elite army. I have no doubt that our army will be one of the best in the world. And then I am sure that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either through mutual understanding, or by other means.”
From: Letters to Paula and the Children (Hebrew, Tel Aviv, 1968), pp. 210-213.

Would you care to give this quote in its entirety, along with the gist of Ben Gurion’s letter to his son? Presumably, the ‘(Hebrew, Tel Aviv 1968)’ you’ve given is the date of a book publication because it isn’t the date of the letter. That was written in October, 1937, a full decade before the UN vote on partition.

If you cannot give the overall gist of this letter, perhaps with one or two quotes that demonstrate Ben Gurion’s belief that Arabs and Jews could live side by side in a Jewish state and become allies in a number of ways, then I’m happy to oblige.

As you like quotes, Sencar, perhaps I should remind you of this rather famous statement, made by Zuheir Mohsen, the military leader of the PLO

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

I don’t have access to the whole letter; my reference is from The Birth of Israel by Simha Flapan. However the meaning of the quote is pretty clear. Perhaps some Hebrew speaking BBCWatch reader can access the original book of letters for us.

Ben-Gurion made many apparently contradictory statements about the future of Israel and I am familiar with some of the more Arab-friendly ones. In my view he changed the message to suit his audience, particularly during the sensitive times when partition was under discussion. Palestinian leaders are ofen accused of similar doublespeak; peaceful when addressing the West, hostile in front of fellow Arabs. It’s what politicians do in times of conflict I guess.

It’s not at all clear, Sencar, because it omits other aspects of Ben Gurion’s hopes

“We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy – agricultural, industrial and maritime. We shall organise an advanced defense force – a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world”

Omitting the reference to agriculture, industry and maritime and starting with ‘we shall organise a sophisticated defense force” is to pluck out the comment that suits a particular narrative and alters the substantive.

The letter makes clear that Ben Gurion hopes that the Arabs will accept a Jewish state and that the surrounding countries will come to see it as an ally. He also writes of the possibility of Jewish support to help them develop their under-developed lands. But, he is also realistic, accepting that “People don’t always behave
according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage”

Did Ben Gurion make contradictory statements, Sencar, or have his quotes been corrupted in the same way that those you’ve mentioned here?

The thing to remember is that he was realistic. What he wanted, and what he believed he was likely to get, were obviously not the same. Thus, two future outcomes were possible and both had to be accounted for. Either the Arabs would live in a Jewish state peacefully, or they would not. No leader worth his salt looks only at the dancing-through-daisies option.

At least you are prepared to argue reasonably, pennylan, and not just resort to abuse; for which thanks.

Now just consider the position in the thirties from the Arab point of view:

– They were seeing rapidly escalating Jewish immigration with no upper limit in sight;
– Jews were acquiring Arab land as fast as possible. A free market is fine when it goes both ways but the Arabs knew that land, once Jewish, would never come back. Meanwhile there was a growing problem of landless peasants;
– Jews were building armed forces with an impressive capacity and had the tacit support of the British, whilst the 36/39 Arab revolt was crushed with considerable brutality;
– “The letter makes clear that Ben Gurion hopes that the Arabs will accept a Jewish state”. The Arabs might have accepted a Jewish state in territory proportionate to their numbers with a clear understanding that further immigration and expansionary ambitions would cease, but none of these conditions were on the table. Ben Gurion made it clear that borders were fluid and that Israel wanted to attract as many Jews as possible. The idea that “Arabs [would] accept a Jewish state” on these terms is ridiculous, and Ben Gurion, being the intelligent politician that he was, knew this perfectly well. Just on the basis of probabilities the notion of Ben Gurion as a friend of the Arabs doesn’t stand up for a moment.

In what way was the land ‘Arab’ land? The Arabs hadn’t ruled for centuries. The land passed directly from the Ottoman empire into the temporary custody of the British Mandate whose responsibility it was to establish new boundaries – and new countries. Jordan – carved out of Palestine – was one of them. It was known from the get-go that a Jewish homeland would also be established. If there was no outrage over the boundaries and creation of other nations, why was a tiny, tiny Jewish homeland so problematic? I think the answer is self-evident.

As for ‘the Arabs might have accepted a Jewish state in territory proportionate to their numbers..” I take it you know that the current state of Israel is no bigger than Wales, and that half of it is desert? I take it you also know that no matter how small the area proposed in talks, the Arabs still would not tolerate a Jewish homeland.

I don’t know your overall views on immigration, but when you write “….with a clear understanding that further immigration ….would cease”, you either imply immigration as a whole is problematic or that, specifically, Jewish immigration is not to be countenanced. Which of course, is the centuries-old reason that a Jewish state has to exist.. And anyway, why should Jews not immigrate to a very small portion of land that had already been allocated to them?

This is a no-brainer. It was Arab land because they had lived there for generations. The identity of the ruling clique is irrelevant. Arabs were entitled to the land they lived on just as North American indians were entitled to their land, albeit without US government title deeds. The peasants’ landlords frequently lived elsewhere in the Ottoman empire and were quite happy to sell to Jews, but the consequent creation of landless farmers in a country where their families had lived for hundreds of years was clearly immoral.

“I take it you know that the current state of Israel is no bigger than Wales”

I take it you know, pennylan, that the Partition Plan offered Israel 59% of the land when Jews made up less than a third of the population and owned less than 7% of the land. Would you accept a deal like that?

“I take it you also know that no matter how small the area proposed in talks, the Arabs still would not tolerate a Jewish homeland.”

Arabs were generally accepting of a Jewish minority in their country until the immigrant population rapidly expanded in the 20’s and 30’s. A partition deal might have been achieved if the Zionists had agreed to fixed borders and limited immigration. Without these provisos Arabs were always under threat of population pressure and losing ever more territory, as has been demonstrated over the last 60 years or so.

“I don’t know your overall views on immigration”

You are now trying to portray me as some sort of racist. Immigration to most countries is to be welcomed so long as it doesn’t seek to drive out the indigenous peoples, is proportionate to existing population numbers and does not confine itself to exclusive ghettos. Jewish immigration to Palestine falls down on all these counts. The problem wasn’t that immigrants were Jewish but that they had ambitions to drive out the existing population, settle as many Jews as could be induced to come and had no interest in integrating with the native population.

Whose land is Palestine?
The overwhelming impression of Western visitors in the 19th century was that there
were very few people living in Palestine. The British Consul General, James Finn,
wrote in 1857 that “the country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants.”
He added that the land’s “greatest need is that of a body of population.” Mark Twain
visited the land of Israel/Palestine in 1867, traveled through the Jezreel Valley, and
related, “there is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent… A desolate
country… a silent mournful expanse. …We never saw a human being on the whole
route…* Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the great British cartographer, reached similar
conclusions in 1881: “In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles and
miles there was no appearance of life or habitation.”

In the middle of the 19th century, Palestine was largely a barren desert. There
were some small Jewish communities in places like Jerusalem, Safed, Jaffa, Akko
and Tiberias. There were also small communities of Bedouins, Turks, and Arabs.
Palestine was a backwater province of the Turkish Empire.

Scholar David Meir-Levi on Jewish emigrants from Europe known as Zionists:
“ Zionist pioneers from the middle of the 19th century onward joined the local
Jewish communities in rebuilding a Jewish homeland in what was then the
Turkish Empire by purchasing land from the Turkish Crown and from Arab
landowners (effendi). There was no invasion, no conquest, and no theft of
Arab land. […]

Much of the land that the Zionists purchased was desert and swamp, uninhabited
and deemed uninhabitable by the Arabs. Modern agrarian techniques instituted by the Jews and the blood and sweat of thousands of idealistic Zionists reclaimed that land and turned it into prime real estate with flourishing farms and rapidly growing communities sporting modern technology and a healthy market economy.
As a result, Arab migrants poured into the region from surrounding states, with hundreds of thousands seeking a better life and greater economic opportunity.”
* Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 349.Second Aliyah workers eating lunch in the fields of Migdal.

NOTE The great majority of Palestinian Arabs (both in Jordan and other parts of
Palestine) are descendants of the Arab immigrants of the late 19th and 20th
century. They are sons and daughters of the Arabs that immigrated to Palestine
in search of work. Their leader Yasser Arafat immigrated to Palestine from
Cairo, Egypt.

Jews had also lived on the land for centuries. Arabs still had the vast majority of the land in the shape of Jordan. The state of Israel was – and is – just a sliver of land when compared to the very large, surrounding Arab nations. The deal – as you call it – seems fair in this light especially as a huge chunk of the land is desert and prior to partition that desert was encroaching on the tiny bit of settled land.

As for the Arabs losing territory since – come on! This would not have happened if the Arabs hadn’t started wars. Not wars about borders or land, but war because a tiny dot of land was to be occupied and ruled by Jews.

It is also quite obvious that had the Arab nations won that war they would have distributed the conquered land between themselves. In the Zuheir Mohsen quote he makes it clear that there would not have been an independent Palestine at all but a greater Jordan which, as we know, is not ruled by Palestinians despite them being the majority. Why does that not trouble you? They are not content and are not treated at all fairly – this I know from talking only recently to a Palestinian from Jordan.

I don’t like the ‘you are trying to portray me’ bit. I’m responding to your own comments on immigration. And I think it’s worth exploring. Would there have been intolerance towards others – non-Jewish – coming to the land?

My husband is Egyptian born – one of those families expelled by Nasser. Surely the Arab intolerance towards Jews bolstered the immigration that you believe was so problematic?

A forthcoming exhibition in a Jerusalem museum proves even archaeology is a flashpoint in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

On Tuesday, Israel’s national museum announced the opening of the world’s first exhibition devoted to the archaeological legacy of King Herod, the biblical Roman-Jewish king who ruled Jerusalem from 37 to 4 BC. Israel Museum will debut the Herod the Great exhibition on 13 February despite protests from Palestinians who object to the excavation and display of artefacts found in the West Bank without permission of Palestinian authorities. The anticipated exhibition, which will run until October, will include what is believed to be Herod’s tomb and sarcophagus. This represents the museum’s largest and most expensive archaeological project to date.

In the New Testament, Herod, also known as King of Judea, is portrayed as a tyrant who butchered Bethlehem’s male children in an attempt to prevent the prophesized birth of Jesus. He was known as a ruthless ruler who murdered his own wives and members of his family, as well as a visionary respected for his ambitious building projects. Among his architectural achievements were lavish desert palaces, fortresses and temples, as well as the expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, his most famous project.

Historians believe Herod constructed an extravagant, 25m-long tomb for himself before his death. It was this archaeological treasure that Israeli archaeologist Ehud Netzer spent his career searching for. In 2007, Netzer announced to the world that he had found what he believed was Herod’s tomb – a landmark moment in archaeology. The tomb was found at Herodium, the ruler’s winter palace in the Judean Desert near Bethlehem in the West Bank. As the Israel Museum was planning an exhibition featuring the prized find, however, Netzer fell to his death while surveying the site.

The museum moved ahead with its planned exhibition, excavating several floors of Herod’s tomb, including three sarcophagi, one of which is believed to be Herod’s. In addition to his tomb and sarcophagus, the Herod the Great exhibition will include a reconstructed throne room from Herod’s palace in the Palestinian city of Jericho, a full-sized replica of his theatre at the Herodium, as well as detailed frescos, decorative elements and other accoutrements found on site.

Even before it opens, however, the planned exhibition is drawing ire and controversy. The artefacts were discovered almost entirely in the Palestinian West Bank and their excavation and removal was done without Palestinian permission – a point of contention among Israel’s neighbours.

“The excavation is another example of utilisation of archaeology and history for ideological purposes… [which] will not serve to establish comprehensive peace between the two peoples, the Palestinian and Israeli peoples,” Hamdan Taha, assistant deputy minister in charge of antiquities in the Palestinian Authority, told the Associated Press. He added that excavating archaeological objects from the West Bank without Palestinian sanction was in violation of an international convention that governs antiquities in occupied territories.

The Israel Museum has countered that it is responsible for custodianship of archaeology in the West Bank and that it would return the artefacts to their original site when the exhibition closes.

Practicalities
The Israel Museum is located in Jerusalem on Ruppin Boulevard, near the Israeli Parliament, Knesset; entry to the museum costs 50 Israeli New Shekels for adults and 25 Israeli New Shekels for children and can be purchased at the museum or online.

Duvid Crockett, King of DeLancey Street,/ Home of gefilte fish and kosher meat

The “ever incisive” Robin Shepherd’s contention that Palestinians voluntarily left their homes in order to facilitate the advance of invading Arab armies is utter tosh! It is incredible that such propaganda lies, advanced by the Jewish state to justify their land-grab in ’48, are still being used to defend violent relocation on a grand scale.
Anyone interested in the truth should study General Yigael Yadin’s, “Tochnit Daleth”, the military blueprint of the ’48 campaign. In it, Yadin wrote:
“…the gaining of control will be accomplished in accordance with the following method: encircling enemy villages and searching them, and, in event of resistance, destroying the resisting forces and expelling the population beyond the boundaries of the state”
And please do not try to discredit Ben White and other critics of the Israeli state as anti-Semites, self-hating Jews or “holocaust deniers” Such predictable slights do not advance the truth one bit.

Geoff,
I read your comment with great interest. I don’t see how the quote supports your contention. It really sounds like more obscurantist bs of the kind the Ben Whites et al nurture and thrive on in their obsessiveness.

interestingly, Morris freely acknowledges that although the Tochnit Daleth recommended the attack and expulsion option I referred to in my first post, most Arabs fled because they feared, with reasonable justification, what the IDF would do to them if they were found in their homes. Forget the propaganda nonsense of fleeing their homes to facilitate the advance of invading Arab armies. Who in their right mind would leave everything they possessed behind on the basis of that crazy notion? And what the hell does Shepherd mean that they left “in the “fog of war”? If you want an obscurantist statement to attack, there you have it!

Read Benny Morris for a start. If you want to dig a little further, look at Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak, one of Israel’s great campaigners for human rights, and perhaps “The invention of the Jewish People.” by Shlomo Sand
Oh, and do yourself a favour by not reverting to cheap sarcasm. It doesn’t sit well with your intellectual curiosity.

Good to know that anti-semites can’t quote anything else than two well known israel hater pseudo-scholars like Shahak and Sand. Sencar and Meitner or whoever also like to “quote” falsified Ben-Gurion quotes too…

You are the king of cliches, my friend. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is anti-Semitic, or an Israel hater, or a self-hating Jew, or a pseudo scholar. Have you ever stopped to think why two great Jewish writers, one a Holocaust survivor, would hate Israel?! Wise up!

Shahak is not a historian at all, Sand’s expertise is the history of French cinema and culture. Their opinion about Israel has exactly the same weight as yours. Morris wrote about the forced evacuation of Arabs but in the context of a very bloody civil war where the Israelis fought for their survival. Maybe you should read his bs books in their entirety not only the parts confirming your hate of Israel.
FYI Akers I’m not your friend, (it is not my habit having condescending assholes as friends) – I’m your enemy.

“Have you ever stopped to think why two great Jewish writers, one a Holocaust survivor, would hate Israel?!”

Geoff,
Have you ever stopped to think why many more great Jewish writers, and a multitude of Holocaust survivors don’t hate Israel, but rather love it and see it as both desirable and necessary!? Wise up!

They must have been mighty naive to take the Grand Mufti at his word. It’s a incredible leap of faith to leave your home and everything you have. Only fear for your life and the life of your family would lead to such an act in my view

Oh, of course. With war raging around you, and rumors, oh, I mean “legitimate fears” of what “they’re” going to do to you, who would leave their home? Typically cognitively dissonant Israel hater.
The next time I laugh I’ll have you in mind.

having taken your advice and re-read my own comments vis-a-vis refugees etc, I now see how guilty I was of cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy and prejudice, and how these character flaws made a mockery of enlightened thinking. So please accept my apologies for any distress I might have caused you or anyone else who contributed to the debate.
Live long and prosper,